Bear with me here...
Leighton Woodhouse has some interesting things to say about the class war brewing between two elements of America's elite class.
Politics today is the struggle for supremacy between these two segments of the elite. The economically rich seek to convert their monetary riches into political power by bankrolling their favored candidates (or themselves) in elections and by extending the rules of the free market—the arena in which they are hegemonic—into every facet of human activity. The culturally affluent aim to consolidate political power by constraining the influence of the market to purely economic activity, thereby limiting their rivals’ domain of activities, while proselytizing a vision of government led by professional technocrats. Thus, the rich tend to gravitate toward economically libertarian political ideologies, while the credentialed embrace progressive politics that favor the power of government institutions run by experts.
The thing is that neither of these groups is what they used to be. Both have changed in ways that aren't for the better. The culturally affluent aren't for the most part fluent in Latin and Ancient Greek in the way you once could have assumed they were. Nor do they have a deep understanding of the history of art. Cultural elites have come to specialize in politicized forms of knowledge, and contentious presentation of same.
On the other hand the economically rich are no longer really in the business of physically producing products. Not in the vast majority of cases. They invest in stuff that is made elsewhere, or has no physical reality to begin with.
Steve Bannon is a likable guy, or at least one who grows on you. And when he says, "Musk is a parasitic illegal immigrant,. He wants to impose his freak experiment and play-act as God without any respect for the country’s history, tradition or values," he may be onto something. But that's a problem if he really wants to campaign for a third Trump term. Assuming that Trump is able to run for the presidency again and to serve, he's not going to become less vulnerable to being manipulated by scheming eunuchs. Someone will have to say up hered.
2 comments:
I'd have to agree with most of what Leighton Woodhouse has to say on the subject of a classic class war being waged on one another by 'the upper class' and the wealthy 'entrepreneurs' (by putting the former in quotation marks I had to do so with the latter).
Once you've managed to enroll a significant proportion of what used to be called the underclass into universities and change the academic policies to suit their worldview, then you've essentially changed the definition of cultural wealth. DEI and 'woke' studies are far from what most of us think of when we hear the word culture. It's impossible to imagine anyone who has embraced those concepts being accepted as equals with the enormously wealthy proprietors of businesses like Tesla, Amazon or Microsoft. Servants or dogsbodies is more likely along with ignoring them altogether. In any case it's hard for us to see either group doing anything to benefit common people.
I like Steve Bannon too but I agree with you that he enjoys spreading controversy. It's very unlikely Trump will try for a third term - more likely it will be Vance vying for the traditional role of a VP following a successful presidency.
There were a couple of things we wanted to remind you of, or bring to your attention. Jer recommends a review of a book by Musa al-Gharbi's 'We Have Never Been Woke' about the culturally wealthy elite in the West.
https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2024/10/the-cultural-contradictions-of-a-new-elite-a-review-of-musa-al-gharbis-we-have-never-been-woke/
For my part I can't help but recall reading about a very different way of dealing fairly with people - the Mondragon cooperative in Spain. You can check out a bit of one essay if you're interested.
https://www.corporate-rebels.com/blog/lessons-from-the-mondragon-cooperative-movement
Your take on the duel is most astute.
IN The Devil's Dictionary Ambrose Bierce define "politics" as "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Woodhouse's article offers evidence that this is still as true as it ever was. The trouble is that for many self-interest is so shameful that they engage in crazy mental gymnastics in order to deny having it.
No neither group wants anything to do with the common people. They don't really seem to have any ideas that would benefit that group even if they wanted to. The point is just to maintain their superiority, however you want to define that.
Vance has an advantage in seeking the nomination, anyway. And I think he'd be qualified to lead. Of course if Trump is tied too closely to Elon and they both sink that would appear to hurt Vance as well.
As Aaron Weinacht writes, "in our performative times, an attitude beats an argument any day." I've heard of Musa al-Gharbi and his book before. The ideas keep getting more interesting.
Having only read about the Mondragon cooperative in the abstract, it's hard to determine how well it works and how it would transport to other settings. The way they have limited the wage gap does seem like a good idea, though.
Thank you. You can see it all around us.
Post a Comment